It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Tories have called for an inquiry into the estimated £2.3bn cost of the Ministry of Defence's new Whitehall HQ.
The party want the National Audit Office (NAO) to look into the private finance refurbishment project, the cost of which will be repaid over 30 years.
Leader David Cameron said British people were on tight budgets and did not want a "big-spending government".
The MoD said the NAO reviewed the on-budget project in 2002 and found there had been "effective procurement".
Originally posted by st3ve_o
no offence here dude but for me that is a typical cowboy response and the kinda reply how many americans look at things, reading your posts though in the past id think you should know better than that - i will reply to it though, the lifespan of the current trident doesn't expire while 2040's.
the RN needs naval ships now (or next 10 years), what happens if argentina decide to invade the falklands again, do we threaten them with ALL 3 destoryers (if that article is true)? so what happens if they manage to sink those? last option NUKE EM? yeah man niceone, should make britain quite popular shouldn't it?
spain are wanting gibraltar back aswell - 3 warships are not going to warn them off.
projecting a substanical force around the global is essential for a country like britain and its something we must maintain.
Originally posted by devilwasp
I'm sorry fritz but I cant agree ,your suggesting we remove all our SSBN's and replace them with attack subs. Not only will this mean that the submarine will have to get close to it target (very close) to fire its cruise missiles but a cruise missile is much easier to shoot down than a ballastic missile going at mach 3+.
Originally posted by Daedalus3
Like I said.. keep 2 SSBNs:
That gives you a min of ~100 warheads and 32 SLBMs and a max of 384 warheads!
Not too sure about the compromise on SLBMs and SLCMs.
IMO the Russian ABM capability is just as good as its ACM capability esp since the systems employed are the same and dual use S-400/S-300?
Plus there's a whole n/w of Early warning satellites specific to SLBMs/ICBMs.
The one thing that SLCMs fall short on are the MiRV capabilities and warhead sizes thus limiting deliverable yields?
Doplhin Class SSKs configured to fire nuclear tipped BGM-109 SLCMs gives them a decent second strike capability against whomsoever..
SSNs with the same nuclear BGM-109s isn't so bad. Esp if you can develop/get ranges of ~3000km in the future.
[edit on 11-1-2007 by Daedalus3]
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Originally posted by stumason
Not really. The Type-42 has only a twin Sea dart launcher on board, plus a collection of guns of various calibres, plus Phalanx CIWS.
With only 4 Type-42's in service, that makes a total increase in SAM launchers of 280, if you take it as 6 Type-45's and not 8.
Umm... where are you getting your figures from? There are eight Type 42's in service, and they will be replaced by six Type 45's. Stu, each Type 42 carries more than two missile onboard in their internal magazine. You also forgot the torpedoes and the fact that it has three more guns than the Type 45.
Originally posted by paperplane_uk
Oh and to the guy who suggested that not having a type 23 replacement in the works was not a problem as they still have a 15 year lifespan left. How long exactly do you think it takes to research, design and built a modern frigate? We will be very lucky to have anything in place in 15 years without a massive increase in spending on design.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Stu, the Type 45 will have six modules (as you said each module has eight missiles) in one large group. The SYLVER is a VLS, as such it cannot be reloaded at sea that is why VLS ships don't carry any extra missiles on board. The Type 45 therefore only has a capacity for 48 missiles, no internal stores. Furthermore the Type 45 will carry the A50 version of the SYLVER modules, which means it can only accommodate missiles up to five meters long. This effectively makes the Type 45 non Tomahawk or Storm Shadow capable.
Also, the Type 42 has a twin rail launcher which can be reloaded immediately after launch (within a few seconds) via an automatic reload mechanism. Therefore as I said before if it's internal magazine can carry close to 48 missiles then the Type 45 will offer no significant increase in terms of numbers.
Originally posted by stumason
I am "the Guy"...
About 10 years, from inception to build. The original Horizon Destroyers project, that the RN was part of, was where the Type-45 stemmed from. The RN withdrew in 1999 and went on the develop the Type-45. So, from those figures, I'd say about 5-6 years minimum, 10 years tops.